Historical and critical review of spatial and transport planning in the Netherlands

Land Use Policy

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 536-547

  Alpkokin, Pelin ^a  

^a ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

National spatial planning; National transport planning; The Netherlands

Indexed keywords

GOVERNANCE APPROACH; HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE; INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT; POLICY ANALYSIS; POLICY APPROACH; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION; SPATIAL PLANNING; TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE; TRANSPORTATION PLANNING;

NETHERLANDS;

EID: 84855268815     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.09.007     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Alpkokin P., Cheng C., Black J., Hayashi Y. Dynamics of clustered employment growth and its impacts on commuting patterns in rapidly developing cities. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 2008, 42(3):427-444.
2. Anderson W.P., Kanaroglou P.S., Miller E.J. Urban form, energy, and the environment: a review of issues, evidence and policy. Urban Studies 1996, 33(1):7-35.
3. Annema J.A., van Wee B., van Hoek T.V., van der Waard J.V. Evaluation of Dutch public investment plans. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1999, 19(3):305-317.
4. Banister D., Stead D., Steen P., Akerman J., Dreborg K., Nijkamp P., Scleicher-Tappeser R. European Transport Policy and Sustainable Mobility 2000, Spon Press, London.
5. Bertolini L., le Clercq F. Urban development without more mobility by car? Lessons from Amsterdam, a multimodal urban region. Environment and Planning A 2003, 35(4):575-589.
6. Bertolini L., le Clercq F., Kapoen L. Sustainable accessibility: a conceptual framework to integrate transport and land use plan-making. Two test applications in the Netherlands and a reflection on the way forward. Transport Policy 2005, 12(3):207-220.
7. Boiteux-Orain C., Guillain R. Changes in the intra metropolitan location of produces services in Ile-de-France (1978-1997): Do information technologies promote a more dispersed spatial pattern?. Urban Geography 2004, 25(6):550-578.
8. Bovy P.H.L., van Wee B. Infrastructure and congestion: Can rail save the road? Can public transport replace the car?. Travel Behavior: Spatial Patterns, Congestion, and Modeling 2002, 123-142. Edward Elgar Cheltenham, Northampton. E. Stern, I. Salomon, P.H.L. Bovy (Eds.).
9. Cervero R. Jobs-housing balancing and regional mobility. Journal of the American Planning Association 1989, 55:136-150.
10. Cervero R. Public transport and sustainable urbanism: global lessons. Transit Oriented Development: Making it Happen 2009, 22-35. Ashgate, (Chapter 3). C. Curtis, J. Renne, L. Bertolini (Eds.).
11. Cervero R., Kockelman K. Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity and design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 1997, 2(3):199-219.
12. Cervero R., Wu K.L. Polycentrism, commuting and residential location in the San Francisco Bay Area. Environment and Planning Part A 1997, 29(5):865-886.
13. Chapman D., Pratt D., Larkham P., Dickens I. Concepts and definitions of corridors: evidence from England's midlands. Journal of Transport Geography 2003, 11(3):167-243.
14. Dick H.W., Rimmer P.J. Cities, Transport and Communications: The Integration of Southeast Asia since 1850 2003, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
15. Dubin R. Commuting patterns and firm decentralization. Land Economics 1991, 67(1):15-29.
16. Faludi A., van der Valk A.J. Rule and Order Dutch Planning Doctrine in the Twentieth Century 1994, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Amsterdam.
17. Frank L.D., Pivo G. Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Transportation Research Record 1994, 1466:44-52.
18. Frey H. Designing the City: Towards a More Sustainable Urban Form 1999, E&FN Spon, London.
19. Garrison W.L., Ward J.D. Tomorrow's Transportation: Changing Cities, Economies and Lives 2000, Artech House, Norwood, MA.
20. Gary P. The net of mixed beads suburban office development in six metropolitan regions. Journal of the American Planning Association 1990, 56(4):457-469.
21. Geerlings H., Stead D. The integration of land use planning, transport and environment in European policy and research. Transport Policy 2003, 10(3):187-196.
22. Geurs K.T. Accessibility, Land use and Transport 2006, Eburon, Delft.
23. Geurs K.T., van Wee B. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography 2004, 12(2):127-140.
24. Geurs K.T., van Wee B. Ex-post evaluation of thirty years of compact urban development in the Netherlands. Urban Studies 2006, 43(1):139-160.
25. Giuliano G., Small K.A. Is the journey to work explained by urban structure?. Urban Studies 1993, 30(9):1485-1500.
26. Gordon P., Richardson H., Jun M. The commuting paradox: evidence from the top twenty. Journal of the American Planning Association 1991, 57:416-420.
27. Gysbertus R.M.J., Hilbers H., Wilmink I. A comparison analysis of Randstad, the Rhine-Ruhr area and the Qntwerp-Brussels-Ghent region. Travel Behavior: Spatial Patterns, Congestion, and Modeling 2002, 20-36. Edward Elgar Cheltenham, Northampton. E. Stern, I. Salomon, P.H.L. Bovy (Eds.).
28. Hall P., Pfeiffer U. Urban Future 21: A Global Agenda for Twenty-first Century Cities 2000, E&FN Spon, London.
29. Handy S. Planning for accessibility: in theory and in practice. Access to Destinations 2005, Elsevier. M.L. Levinson, K.J. Krizek (Eds.).
30. Hidding M.C., Teunissen A.T.J. Beyond fragmentation: new concepts for urban-rural development. Landscape and Urban Planning 2002, 58:297-308.
31. Kitamura R., Mokhtarian P.L., Laidet L. A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation 1997, 24(2):125-158.
32. Koomen E., Dekkers J., van Dijk T. Open-space preservation in the Netherlands: planning, practice and prospects. Land Use Policy 2008, 25(3):361-377.
33. Kroon M. 15 years of integration of environment into transport policy in the Netherlands. Paper Presented at the Conference on Good Practice in Integration of Environment into Transport Policy 2002.
34. le Clercq F., Bertolini L. Achieving sustainable accessibility: an evaluation of policy measures in the Amsterdam Area. Built Environment 2003, 29(1):36-47.
35. Louw E., van der Krabben E., Priemus H. Spatial development policy: changing roles for local and regional authorities in the Netherlands. Land Use Policy 2003, 20:357-366.
36. Maat K. Effects of the Dutch compact city policy on travel behavior. Transport and Environment: In Search of Sustainable Solutions 2001, 208-230. Edward Elgar Cheltenham, Northampton. E. Feitelson, E.T. Verhoef (Eds.).
37. Maat K. The compact city: conflict of interest between housing and mobility aims in the Netherlands. Travel Behavior: Spatial Patterns, Congestion, and Modeling 2002, 3-19. Edward Elgar Cheltenham, Northampton. E. Stern, I. Salomon, P.H.L. Bovy (Eds.).
38. Maclaren V.W. Urban sustainability reporting. Journal of the American Planning Association 1996, 62(2):184-202.
39. Marshall S., Banister D. Land use and Transport: European Research towards Integrated Policies 2007, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
40. Marthens, M.J., Griethuysen, S., 1999. The ABC location policy in the Netherlands-the right business at the right place. http://www.tno.nl.transland/cases.prio/01-ABCpolicy.pdf.
41. McMillen D.P., Lester T.W. Evolving subcenters: employment and population densities in Chicago, 1970-2020. Journal of Housing Economics 2003, 12(1):60-81.
42. McMillen D.P., Stefani C.S. The number of subcenters in large urban areas. Journal of Urban Economics 2003, 53(3):321-338.
43. Naess P., Sandberg S.L. Workplace location, model split and energy use for commuting trips. Urban Studies 1996, 33(3):557-580.
44. Nagoya University, International Research Center for Sustainable Transport and Cities Mobility for Sustainable Development: Bangalore Case Study 2008, Toyota Corporation, Nagoya.
45. Nakamura H., Hayashi Y., May A.D. Urban transport and the environment: an international perspective. World Conference on Transport Research Society and Institute for Transport Policy Studies 2004, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
46. Niekerk F., Voogd H. Impact assessment for infrastructure planning: some Dutch dilemmas. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1999, 19:21-36.
47. Preston J., Rajé F. Accessibility, mobility and transport-related social exclusion. Journal of Transport Geography 2007, 15:151-160.
48. Prevedouros P.D., Schofer J.L. Trip characteristics and travel patterns of suburban residents. Transportation Research Record 1991, 1328:49-57.
49. Priemus H., Konings R. Light rail in urban regions: what Dutch policymakers could learn from experiences in France, Germany and Japan. Journal of Transport Geography 2001, 9:187-198.
50. Priemus H., Visser J. Infrastructure policy in the Randstad Holland: struggle between accessibility and sustainability. Political Geography 1995, 14(4):363-377.
51. Priemus H., Zonneveld W. What are corridors and what are the issues? Introduction to special issue: the governance of corridors. Journal of Transport Geography 2003, 11:167-177.
52. Priemus H., Nijkamp P., Banister D. Mobility and spatial dynamics: an uneasy relationship. Journal of Transport Geography 2001, 9(3):167-171.
53. Rietveld P. Urban development between market forces and policy intervention; experiences in the Netherlands. Journal of Japan Real Estate Society 2001, 5:23-30.
54. Schwanen T., Dijst M., Dieleman F.M. Policies for urban form and their impact on travel: the Netherlands experience. Urban Studies 2004, 41(3):579-603.
55. Stead D. Relationship between land use, socio-economic factors, and travel patterns in Britain. Environment and Planning Part B: Planning and Design 2001, 28:499-528.
56. Smith T., Nelischer M., Perkins N. Quality of urban community: a framework for understanding the relationship between quality and physical form. Landscape and Urban Planning 1997, 39(2):229-241.
57. van der Valk A.J. The Dutch planning experience. Landscape and Urban Planning 2002, 58:201-210.
58. van Eck J.R.V., Burghouwt G., Dijst M. Lifestyles, spatial configurations and quality of life in daily travel: an explorative simulation study. Journal of Transport Geography 2005, 13(2):123-134.
59. Veenhoven R. Happy life-expectancy: a comprehensive measure of quality of life in nations. Social Indicators Research 1996, 39:1-58.
60. Vink B., van der Burg A. New Dutch spatial planning policy creates space for development. NSL Network City and Landscape: The planning Review 2006, 164(1):41-49.
61. van Wee B. Land use and transport: research and policy challenges. Journal of Transport Geography 2002, 10(4):259-271.
62. van Wee B., van der Hoorn T. Employment location as an instrument of transport policy in The Netherlands: fundamentals, instruments, and effectiveness. Transport Policy 1996, 3(3):81-89.
63. Wegener M., Fürst F. Land-Use Transport Interaction: State of the Art. Deliverable D2a of the Project TRANSLAND (Integration of Transport and Land Use Planning) 1999, Berichte aus den Institut für Raumplanung 46, Institut für Raumplanung, Universität Dortmund, Dortmund.
64. Wheeler S.M., Beatley T. The Sustainable Urban Development Reader 2004, Routledge, New York.
65. Wish N.B. Are we really measuring the quality of life? Well being has subjective dimensions, as well as objective ones. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 1986, 45(1):93-99.
66. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) Mobility 2001: World Mobility at the End of the Twentieth Century and its Sustainability 2001, WBCSD, Geneva.